I don’t know why they call them “Obamaphones” since he’s not paying for them

---

Mail Online:

Hidden camera catches wireless company employees passing out ‘Obama phones’ to people who say they’ll SELL them for drugs, shoes, handbags and spending cash

Undercover video shot in May by a conservative activist shows two corporate distributors of free cell phones handing out the mobile devices to people who have promised to sell them for drug money, to buy shoes and handbags, to pay off their bills, or just for extra spending cash.

The ‘Obama phone,’ which made its ignominious YouTube debut outside a Cleveland, Ohio presidential campaign event last September, is a project of the Federal Communications Commission’s ‘Lifeline’ program, which makes land line and mobile phones available to Americans who meet low-income requirements.

Lifeline was a $2.19 billion program in 2012.

Recipients most commonly demonstrate their need by flashing an Electronic Benefits Transfer card to verify their eligibility for welfare payments, or by bringing tax statements to a phone provider.

The phones’ legitimate purposes include poverty-level job applicants’ use as contact numbers for job interviews and emergency contacts for children of single parents.

But when James O’Keefe, whose Project Veritas is a perennial thorn in the side of progressive policymakers, sent an undercover actor into a Stand Up Wireless location in Philadelphia, the man’s stated purpose was to buy drugs.

‘Once you guys give me this phone, it’s my phone?’ he asked an employee inside a Philadelphia brick-and-mortal Stand Up Wireless location. ‘I can, like, sell it and stuff?’

‘Whatever you want to do with it,’ the worker replied.

‘So I’m [going to] get some money for heroin,’ he offered.

The employee coolly responded, ‘Hey, I don’t judge.’

---

I wonder why Vile Progs and other Democrats don’t care for James O’Keefe?

On the bright side, it looks like I’ll be getting a new cell phone.

---

His Lips Were Moving – Obama Addresses Domestic Spying

---

Here he is in all his strawman-burning dishonest glory.

---

If You Have Nothing To Hide You Have Nothing To Fear

---

Senator Lindsey Graham:

“I’m a Verizon customer. I don’t mind Verizon turning over records to the government if the government is going to make sure that they try to match up a known terrorist phone with somebody in the United States. I don’t think you’re talking to the terrorists. I know you’re not. I know I’m not. So we don’t have anything to worry about.”

---

Shorter Graham: “Let’s be good Germans and obey orders. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.”

The problem is I don’t trust government. Neither did our Founding Fathers. The government already knows where you live and work. They know if you vote and what party you are registered with. Soon they’ll have your medical records if they don’t already. Do we really want them to know where you go and who you talk to?

If you don’t think they would abuse that power I have three words for you: Infernal Revenue Service. Of course they will abuse power. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Even if Obama was the saintly leader his followers believe him to be, he won’t always be president. Sooner or later (sooner) that power will be abused.

One more thing – I don’t give a fuck if Bush did it too. He’s not president anymore and he was wrong when he did it. Like I used to tell my kids when they were fighting, “I don’t care who started it, I want it to stop!“

Here’s another good German:

---

---

Media Malpractice

---

Clark Whelton at City Journal:

Death by Media

Revelations concerning Benghazi, the IRS, and government probing of the Associated Press make it increasingly clear that Barack Obama was led astray by his friends in the media. They intended no harm to the president, needless to say. But by withholding the criticism that prods public officials into doing a better job, by choosing not to print negative stories and commentaries about the Obama administration, the press corps tempted the president and his staff with visions of invincibility. The pro-Obama news crew—with a boost from the Nobel Peace Prize committee—confirmed the president’s exalted view of himself. They are in part responsible for encouraging Obama to think that he could tamper with the truth about Benghazi and get away with it.

Through two presidential campaigns and Obama’s first term, mainstream editors, editorial writers, and journalists served as de facto auxiliaries for the White House press office. Certain that they were serving a noble cause, they soft-pedaled bad news about the economy and ignored or played down the president’s gaffes. Aided by one-liners from late-night talk-show hosts, they attacked and ridiculed Fox News or any reporter, radio commentator, writer, or blogger not riding Obama’s bandwagon. They hounded and harassed Sarah Palin—author Joe McGinnis even moved next door to her home—determined to destroy someone they perceived as a threat to Obama’s power. They rode shotgun as Obamacare made its way through Congress. And they led the chorus of derision that greeted early reports of political corruption inside the IRS.

Last September, when Mitt Romney raised questions about Benghazi, the mainstream media accused the Republican presidential challenger of “politicizing” the issue. Taking their leads from Democratic press releases, they kept the spotlight on Romney’s supposed missteps, giving the Obama administration time to camouflage a murderous terror attack as a spontaneous riot. And with each alibi they provided, with each news story they slanted to assist Obama at the polls, they deprived the president of the honest feedback that public officials may not want but desperately need. A biased press corps steadily pushed the president closer to the precipice where he now precariously stands.

In the morning, those who have engaged in whorish behavior—or in this case, those rewarded with invitations to insider Washington parties and access to private e-mail lists—are somehow astonished by a lack of respect. Members of the media, including Associated Press reporters, after favoring and flattering Obama for years, were stunned to discover that Obama’s Department of Justice was treating them like tarts and had targeted the AP with secret subpoenas.

The end of the affair is always painful and poignant. Unaccustomed to sunlight, fleeing suspicions of malfeasance and outright criminality, the Obama administration is pleading guilty to incompetence and ignorance. Benghazi? Hey, who knew the Libyans to whom we had been secretly running guns would turn them on us? We didn’t want to make things worse by calling the cops. Besides, we knew the media would let the story die. The IRS? Shock. Outrage. Never heard of the place.

An independent press is a compass, a vital part of the American system of checks and balances. It can provide the ship of state with mid-course corrections. But a compass that swings any way the helmsman wants is worse than useless. It points the way to disaster.

---

When I first started working retail security the district manager told me his theory. He said about 15% of people are pathologically honest. They won’t steal no matter what. These are the people that turn in cash they find on the ground and walk back into the store to return money when they realize they were given too much change.

Then there are another 15% who are the exact opposite. They are basically a crime waiting to happen. You can try to catch them and do things to make it hard for them to get away with it, but you can’t stop them.

That leaves about 70% of the people. They are basically honest but might give into temptation if you make it too easy for them. So you watch them. And you let them know you’re watching. Because if they know someone’s watching they will stay honest.

We have nothing to fear from a press that is overzealous when it comes to investigating those who hold power. The danger comes from a press that abdicates its responsibility and becomes a cheerleading squad for the administration.

---

---

Cops & Crooks Don’t Hang-Out Together

---

Pathetico:

White House correspondents partiers say Tom Brokaw’s got it wrong

White House correspondents just want to have fun.

That was the message that members of the media and others making the rounds at Friday night’s parties had for Tom Brokaw in the face of his renewed criticism of the Correspondents’ Association dinner.
“As a former White House Correspondent, it’s really nice for people in politics and media to come together and have a little weekend of fun,” MSNBC host Alex Wagner told POLITICO at a reception at the Hay Adams hotel. “I understand the idea of the ‘celebrification’ of the event but I think it’s more of a testament to how interesting and compelling Washington politics is to the outside world.”

[...]

Brokaw touched off the debate over the dinner when he told POLITICO’s Patrick Gavin in an interview that he won’t be attending this year’s gathering and that the last straw for him was when Lindsay Lohan was invited in 2012. The veteran newsman bemoaned the number of celebs at the dinner and worried how it all looks.

“What kind of image do we present to the rest of the country?” Brokaw asked. “Are we doing their business, or are we just a group of narcissists who are mostly interested in elevating our own profiles? And what comes through the screen on C-SPAN that night is the latter, and not the former.”

Some journalists said they didn’t see any downside to the dinner on Saturday night and the weekend of parties and events.

New Yorker editor David Remnick, whose magazine threw a Friday night soirée on the roof of the W Hotel, told POLITICO he doesn’t think the White House Correspondents’ Dinner undermines the press.

“Look at what we publish,” he said. “Does it seem like it corrupts us?”

---

Yes it does.

What is interesting here is Politico didn’t bother soliciting some outside-the-beltway opinions. That’s like polling a NORML convention on pot legalization. Your results will be a little skewed.

There is a reason that cops and crooks don’t hang out together. Their occupations are mutually incompatible. Whenever the two groups mingle it is bad news for the rest of us.

The press is supposed to be watchdogs for the rest of us. They are supposed to keep an eye on our public servants. When the press and politicians join forces the inmates have taken over the asylum.

Numerous polls over the past few decades have consistently shown that public respect and esteem for politicians and the press is declining. Or perhaps “plummeting” is a more accurate term. This trend mirrors the increasing insularity and incestuousness inside Washington DC.

If the White House Correspondents’ Dinner was the only time that politicians and the media socialized together that would be one thing. But in recent years the line between the two groups has become blurred as the players keep switching back and forth between teams.

The WHCD is just a symptom of a much large problem.

---

While You Weren’t Looking . . .

---

. . . Congress did it again:

Congress quietly repeals financial transparency rules for government officials

With little fanfare, the House quickly voted Friday to repeal a financial transparency requirement for senior government officials, which was part of a much-heralded government transparency bill last year.

Members passed S. 716 by unanimous consent, with no debate and no description on the floor about what the bill would do. The Senate passed it in the same fashion on Thursday.

The bill amends the Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, which was passed last year on the heels of complaints that members of Congress and senior officials are using their government knowledge to enrich themselves through stock trades or other actions.

Among other things, the STOCK Act required roughly 28,000 senior officials to post their financial details online. But that requirement was immediately criticized by these officials, some of whom said it could pose a national security risk.

Congress twice delayed the reporting requirement, and the last delay was due to expire on Monday, April 15. That delay called for a study of the issue by the National Academy of Public Administration to study the requirement further.

On April 1, that group recommended ending the requirement for senior officials.

The bill approved by the Senate on Thursday and by the House today would permanently end this requirement, by saying the reporting requirement for senior government officials “shall not be effective.” The reporting requirements would still apply to the president, vice president, members of Congress and candidates for Congress.

House passage of the bill sends it to President Obama for his signature into law.

---

Obama quietly signed it into law today.

Who said bipartisanship was dead? I believe the expression “Thick as thieves” is appropriate here.

---

NOTE: I stickied this to the top of the front page because I think it’s an important story and it originally posted just minutes before the explosions in Boston. I’ll leave it stickied until there is more news tomorrow.

---

It’s a Greek Tragedy

---

Jazz Shaw:

Scarborough: Former congressman Jesse Jackson’s facing jail time after pleading guilty to misusing hundreds of thousands of dollars of campaign funds. A tearful Jackson apologized to his family and friends. NBC’s justice correspondent Pete Wlliams takes us through this sad case.

[Video clip of Williams is played]

Mika: That was NBC’s Pete Williams reporting.
Scarborough: It’s a sad story. Harold, you served with Jesse. As did I.
Harold Ford: I know Jesse. It’s sad. I know the family well. My prayers go out to his kids and to the entire family. And I hope there is another chapter in his life.
Mika: I hope they can turn it around.
Scarborough: Yeah.

---

That’s about the moment when my head exploded, ruining what was otherwise a perfectly nice, Thursday morning breakfast. At what point did this become a “sad story” exactly? The criminal was caught and brought to justice. The system worked. Aren’t we generally happy about that? To reiterate what I was ranting about on Twitter, this guy stole nearly a million dollars from the people of his district, many of whom live below the poverty level! Was anybody “sad” when Bernie Madoff got caught? Was anyone praying for “a new chapter” in Madoff’s life where he would “turn things around?”

And before any of you Jackson loving sycophants get all up in arms over the comparison, there is virtually zero difference between Bernie Madoff and Jesse Jackson jr. except in terms of scale. Madoff stole money from innocent people looking to invest in the future for their retirement. Jackson stole money from working class people willing to invest in the future of their state and country by supporting somebody promising to make their future better. They are the same. Madoff was just better at it.

And while we’re on the topic, what prompted Joe to choose the word “misused” regarding the missing funds? They weren’t “misused,” Joe. They were stolen and spent on Rolex watches, stuffed animal heads, Michael Jackson’s guitar and a huge list of additional swag. Misusing campaign funds is when you authorize a payment to a consultant or pollster who isn’t registered properly. This was theft to finance his own lifestyle above and beyond his means, plain and simple.

---

Jesse Jackson Jr. spent his whole life being the son of Jesse Jackson. He never held a real job in his life. He went to college at his dad’s alma mater. Then he went to seminary school but he was never ordained. Then he went to law school but he never took the bar. At age 35 he became a congressman, representing one of the Democratic party’s safe seats – a majority black district covering the South Side of Chicago. His wife became a Chicago alderman and ran a political consulting firm.

Those campaign funds he “misused”? He has never faced a real challenge for reelection, so what did he need the money for in the first place? As a congressman he was making $174,000 year plus really good benefits. I guess that wasn’t enough to cover a Rolex.

JJJr’s rehabilitation program has already started. He hid in a clinic for months, claiming he suffered from a mood disorder. When he gets out of prison he’ll find employment with some NPO with a side job doing commentary for MSNBC. Don’t be surprised if he writes a book confessing to his sins and describing his journey of redemption.

After all, “disgraced Democrat” is an oxymoron.

---

The Chicago Way

---

Federal charges filed against Jesse Jackson Jr., wife

Former U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. was charged today with violating federal law by misusing $750,000 in campaign funds.

Jackson, 47, a Democrat from Chicago, was charged in a criminal information with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, mail fraud and false statements. Typically, federal prosecutors use an information to charge defendants when a plea deal has been negotiated.

Jackson faces up to five years in prison, a fine of up to $250,000 and other penalties, according to federal prosecutors in Washington, D.C., where the charges were filed.

His wife, Sandi Jackson, was charged in an information with one count of filing false tax returns. She faces up to three years in prison, a fine of up to $100,000 and other penalties. Her attorneys released a statement saying she has “reached an agreement with the U.S. attorney’s office to plead guilty to one count of tax fraud.”

Jesse Jackson is accused of diverting $750,000 in campaign funds for personal use.

Federal authorities allege that Jesse Jackson used campaign funds to purchase a $43,350 men’s gold-plated Rolex watch, $5,150 worth of fur capes and parkas, and $9,588 in children’s furniture. The purchases were made between 2007 and 2009, according to the criminal information, which authorities noted is not evidence of guilt.

---

I first became aware of JJJr. back in 2008 when he played the race card on Hillary. Karma is a bitch.

---

---

Toothless Watchdog

---

Obama administration’s multiple Hatch Act violations raise questions

A troubling pattern of illegal campaigning by government officials, including two members of President Obama’s cabinet, is raising questions about the federal oversight agency that monitors such infractions.

The Office of Special Counsel, which investigates federal employees for engaging in partisan politics, previously found that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius did indeed break the law last year when she campaigned for President Obama during an event in North Carolina. But according to new information obtained by watchdog organization Cause of Action, the DNC improperly reimbursed the federal government for the trip.

The DNC fired back at Cause of Action, calling the accusation “utter nonsense.”

“This is utter nonsense being peddled by right-wing partisans who have nothing better to do than dredge up an issue that has long since been resolved,” said DNC spokesperson Brad Woodhouse in a statement.

Sebelius may have also broken the law when she attended a campaign event for Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown. Brown’s campaign reimbursed HHS for her trip, indicating that the visit was political in nature.

The penalty for Sebelius’s North Carolina violation alone should have been termination, or a 30-day suspension. Instead, the Obama administration chose not to take any action against her.

The Hatch Act of 1939 restricts federal government employees’ from participating in partisan politics in their capacity as public officials. Infractions of the law are investigated by the OSC, which is headed by a presidential appointee.

But the OSC isn’t pursuing Hatch Act violators in the Obama administration as diligently as it should, said a Cause of Action spokesperson.

---

It’s really no surprise – we saw the same thing in the Bush administration, and with campaign contributions to Obama. Nothing ever happens except sometimes they have to pay back some money.

What is the point of a law if it isn’t enforced?

Hey, look! Something shiny!

---

Boomtown is full of rats

---

‘Boomtown’ Special Angers, Resonates with Americans

Fox News will re-air “Boomtown” on Sunday at 9 p.m. EST and 9 p.m. PST. “Boomtown” is a one-hour investigative special that assails Washington, D.C.’s permanent political class for “extracting” taxpayer dollars from Americans and growing the size of government to enrich themselves and their cronies without creating anything of use.

Fox News’ “Hannity” first aired the blockbuster special on Friday, and the show immediately resonated with viewers across the country. This is in part why Fox News is re-airing the one-hour special.

On the show, Peter Schweizer, the president of the nonpartisan Government Accountability Institute (GAI), Steve Bannon, Breitbart News’ Executive Chairman, and Fox News host Sean Hannity detailed how Washington, D.C. has become the nation’s wealthiest and most lavish region. Their investigation concluded and revealed those in Washington’s permanent political class and aristocracy only have incentives to grow the size and scope of government to further enrich themselves and their cronies.

Viewers expressed their outrage at the permanent political class on Twitter as they were watching the show. After the show, viewers sent heartfelt emails to GAI and Breitbart News. Many asked if the show would re-air and if they could purchase DVDs of “Boomtown.”

You don’t have to wait until tonight. Here it is.

---

Holy Frozen Batman!

It happened. Obama was held accountable for something. It’s not much, but it’s something.

President Obama’s 2008 campaign was fined $375,000 by the Federal Election Commission for campaign reporting violations — one of the largest fees ever levied against a presidential campaign, POLITICO has learned.

The fine — laid out in detail in FEC documents that have yet to be made public — arose from an audit of the campaign, which was published in April. POLITICO obtained a copy of the conciliation agreement detailing the fine, which was sent to Sean Cairncross, the chief lawyer for the Republican National Committee, one of the groups that filed complaints about the campaign’s FEC reporting from 2008.

“$375,000 is a huge fine,” said Republican election lawyer Jason Torchinsky. “It may one of their top five- or ten-largest fines.”

But he added, “They’re also the first billion-dollar presidential campaign. Proportionally, it’s not out of line.
[...]

The major sticking point for the FEC appeared to be a series of missing 48-hour notices for nearly 1,300 contributions totaling more than $1.8 million — an issue that lawyers familiar with the commission’s work say the FEC takes seriously. The notices must be filed on contributions of $1,000 or more that are received within the 20-day window of Election Day.

More than half of those contributions were transferred from the Obama Victory Fund,a joint committee between the campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

Sources said the fine resulting from the settlement agreement has been paid, with $230,000 coming from the Obama campaign’s coffers and the remainder from the DNC.

The document outlined other violations, such as erroneous contribution dates on some campaign reports. The Obama campaign was also late returning some contributions that exceeded the legal limit.

Like I said, it’s not much, even though the idiots quoted in the article and the author herself makes it sound breathlessly serious. It’s really just putting the whole thing to bed without actually investigating anything, and offering a veneer of credibility to the most corrupt campaign in American history. There’s nothing there about the illegal contributions from foreigners or the fact that many Vile Progs could have and probably did donate more than the maximum allowed because of that little CVS number work around. But at least it’s something.

You’ll have to wait forever for an investigation into caucus manipulations and delegate-stealing, though. This is an open thread.

The Most Transparent Administration Ever

Lisa Jackson

---

Daily Caller:

EPA chief Jackson resigns amid transparency investigations

A Washington attorney says that Environmental Protection Agency Chief Administrator Lisa Jackson’s resignation and investigations into the EPA’s use of secret email accounts are not coincidental.

“Life’s full of coincidences, but this is too many,” Competitive Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Chris Horner told FoxNews.com. “She had no choice.”

The Justice Department also plans to release emails Jan. 14 in which EPA Chief Jackson’s alias account discusses coal regulation. According to Horner, this clearly is a factor behind Jackson’s decision to leave the agency.

“Two full committees and one investigative subcommittee of the House of Representatives have asked several federal agencies, including EPA and the White House,” Horner said in a press release, adding that the Department of Justice acknowledged “12,000 emails from Lisa Jackson’s ‘secondary’ email account that discuss the Obama administration’s war on coal, in response to litigation we have filed over this practice.”

Jackson announced she would be leaving after the president gives the State of the Union address, but made no mention of the investigations .

“So, I will leave the EPA confident the ship is sailing in the right direction, and ready in my own life for new challenges, time with my family and new opportunities to make a difference,” she said in a statement.

Last month, Horner told The Daily Caller News Foundation that the name “Richard Windsor” was the name of one of Jackson’s alias email accounts.

“That is the name — sorry, one of the alias names — used by Obama’s radical EPA chief to keep her email from those who ask for it,” said Horner, who discovered the use of alias email accounts while writing his book “The Liberal War on on Transparency.”

---

I’m getting old. But I still remember when I got my first email account. It was way back in the nineties when Bill Clinton was still president. I also remember the whoop-ti-doo and hoopla when it was reported that the Bush White House had managed to lose millions of emails they were supposed to save and there were rumors that Bush administration officials were using private email accounts to to conduct official business in order to skirt the law on storing of official emails. Lefty bloggers seemed to think that was real important stuff back then.

But you get older and times change. Quaint notions like government transparency and the rule of law fall by the wayside. What could the head of the Environmental Protection Agency possibly want to keep secret? Not to mention that she is African American, so even questioning her honesty and integrity is racist.

Hey, look! A squirrel!

---

There are none so blind as those who will not see

---

Matthew Continetti:

See No Evil

If a campaign finance story is not about David Koch or Sheldon Adelson, do liberals care?

Consider the reaction to Kenneth Vogel’s important report on the winter meeting of the Democracy Alliance, the secretive organization of progressive millionaires and billionaires who finance an extraordinarily byzantine network of liberal foundations and Super PACs that operate with undisclosed “dark money.”

What reaction? Exactly. There wasn’t any.

The left-wing VIPs assembled at the luxury W Hotel across the street from the White House, but only Vogel reported on the story. The gathering did not merit inclusion in either the Washington Post or the New York Times, both of which have offices within blocks of the W, and both of which have devoted reams of newsprint to Mitt Romney’s donor retreats and various Koch-affiliated fundraising summits. Was New York Times campaign finance reporter Nicholas Confessore too busy appearing on NOW with Alex Wagner to cover the event?

More likely the media simply ignore data that complicate their preferred narrative. When it comes to the fraught relationship between money and politics, that narrative is as follows: Money in politics is corrupting only because rich businessmen trade campaign donations to Republicans for low taxes and fewer environmental regulations.

The 2010 Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case, the narrative continues, assisted such transactions by treating corporate and union PAC donations as protected speech. Republicans are better at fundraising because they are selfish, whereas Democrats are more concerned with the common good. And when Democrats abandon the principles of campaign finance reform, they do so with heavy hearts and the tragic sense that they could not compete otherwise.

The end.

Not only is this fairy tale nonsense, it is the biggest myth in American politics. Liberals use this just-so story to salve their consciences and reinforce their collective prejudices against conservatives. They cannot conceive that progressive donors engage in the exact sort of influence peddling they so lustily condemn.

This willful refusal to face facts leads to repression and confusion. A liberal whose understanding of the 2012 election derived from mainstream media and Team Obama emails would not know that the president’s campaign outraised and outspent Mitt Romney’s campaign by hundreds of millions of dollars. She would be unaware that three of the top five Super PACs were aligned with Democrats. Indeed the overall Republican financial advantage was minimal, a little more than 10 percent. That figure does not include the indirect spending by labor unions that is hard to track. The Democratic Party, meanwhile, has outraised the Republican Party in each of the last three election cycles. Remind me where the GOP’s huge money advantage lies?

---

His ability to raise vast sums of money was one of the original selling points on Obama. And that’s why they keep Nasty Nancy around too.

If the Democrats really cared about campaign finance reform they would have passed something back when they had a filibuster-proof majority in Congress. Why should they want to change the rules now? They’re winning!

---

---

The Chicago Way

Chicago Politics

---

Un-fucking-believable:

Mel Reynolds, an ex-con convicted of bank fraud and having sex with a 16-year-old girl when he was in his 40s, wants to replace the embattled Jesse Jackson Jr. in Congress.

Standing in front of signs that read “Redemption” Reynolds held a news conference on Wednesday saying he would run in a special election after Jackson resigned in disgrace last week in the midst of a federal investigation.

It was Reynolds who Jackson replaced 17 years ago —in a special election — after Reynolds himself resigned in disgrace after his conviction.

“It’s what you do after the mistakes,” Reynolds said, adding that his crimes were “almost 18, 20 years ago,” and shouldn’t be a life sentence. “I want to serve.”

---

The worst part is he very well could win. In fact, if he wins the primary, it’s a sure thing he’ll win the special election.

---

---

SHOCKER – ABC’s Brian Ross does some real reporting

---

When I caught this story last night I was so shocked I almost swallowed my bubblicious. But I wasn’t surprised by the hypocrisy – I’ve known for a while that the Obama Democrats are thoroughly corrupt – I was shocked that somebody in the media reported it:

Red Carpet for Solyndra Figure at Democratic Convention

The Obama campaign rolled out the red carpet this week for a former top Energy Department official who was at the center of the ill-fated government loan to Solyndra, a California solar panel firm that wound up in bankruptcy.

Steven J. Spinner joined other top fundraisers for a VIP tour of the Democratic National Convention floor in Charlotte Monday evening, posing and waving for a photographer while standing behind the podium. When he saw ABC News cameras, however, he ran for the exit.

[...]

This week, Spinner has been attending a number of events organized for the campaign’s top donors — members of the National Finance Committee. He is sporting a badge that identifies him as a “Finance Guest.”

He appears also to be a top donor to the convention’s host committee, which accepts up to $100,000 from individuals to help offset the cost of the three-day Charlotte event. The host committee organized the podium tour that Spinner attended.

ABC News made repeated attempts to interview Spinner as the Solyndra saga unfolded, and he declined. When he was approached by ABC News on the convention floor Monday, he bolted for an exit.

A DNC employee blocked ABC News reporters from following Spinner as he broke into a run.

“You can’t follow people,” the aide said, as he held up his arms to keep the camera from filming Spinner as he left the venue.

Neither the Obama campaign nor the White House responded to requests for comment about Spinner.

---

Spinner wasn’t the only big donor being given the high-roller treatment in Charlotte this week. There are special events that even the delegates aren’t invited to, like private concerts and parties.

---

And the Plot Thickens

Last Friday I read this story about how Obama’s pick for Ambassador to Iraq was being held up in the Senate because of “racy e-mails” he exchanged with a reporter to whom he is now married. Dropped on a Friday, the news story did just what it was designed to do: provoke a WTF? moment. I first thought, they’re married now, so why should this matter? My second thought was, there’s probably more to this story. From the article:

As a former national security staffer for President George W. Bush, President Obama’s nominee to be U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Brett McGurk, was supposed to garner bipartisan support for his confirmation.

That support has suffered after emails of his wooing a female Wall Street Journal reporter – perhaps jokingly referencing favors of access and information – were leaked last weekend, Senate sources said. He later married the reporter.

The emails have alarmed many senators on the Foreign Relations Committee, which began McGurk’s confirmation hearings this week, sources said. Senators want to question McGurk about suggestions in the emails, jokingly or otherwise, that he would give a reporter access to sensitive information and power if their relationship blossomed.

“Overnight, support for him as cratered,” a Republican staffer on the committee said.

See how the tone works? From “former national security staffer For President George W. Bush,” to “perhaps jokingly,” to Republican support cratering, the tone is designed to sell you an idea about the story. The idea is that Republicans are so frigid they won’t even approve a former Bush staffer because of joking, racy e-mails. How uptight is that?

Yesterday the rest of the story dropped. No mere jokes, it looks like the romance led to the reporter sharing with McGurk as-yet-to-be-published articles of the Wall Street Journal. The reporter lost her job for this rank violation of journalistic ethics.

A Wall Street Journal reporter who had an affair with an American official she was covering in Iraq resigned from the newspaper Tuesday, a week after racy e-mails disclosing the relationship surfaced.

The newspaper said the reporter also shared “certain unpublished news articles” with the official in violation of company policy.

Gina Chon, who had covered Iraq for the Journal, quit under pressure after the disclosure of her relationship with Brett McGurk while both lived in Baghdad in 2008. McGurk, who was on the National Security Council staff during the Bush administration, is President Obama’s nominee to be ambassador to Iraq.

McGurk and Chon apparently were married to others at the time that they struck up a relationship; they obtained divorces and recently married.

This is just one of many examples of how the press and the establishment (whoever is in charge) are literally in bed with each other. It’s also an example of how information is funneled through the Obama machine at breakneck speed. With enemies like this Wall Street Journal reporter, who needs friends?

It’s RBC Day

---

Today is the day we mourn the death of democracy in the Democratic party. On this day in 2008 the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee effectively stole the nomination from Hillary Clinton and gave it to Barack Obama.

In August 2006, the Democratic National Committee adopted a rule that only Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina would be allowed to hold primaries or caucuses before Super Tuesday (February 5, 2008). Subsequently, the duly elected representatives of the people of Michigan and Florida set their primary elections in January. So then the DNC ruled that Florida’s 185 pledged delegates and 26 superdelegates as well as Michigan’s 128 pledged delegates and 29 superdelegates would not count in the nominating contest.

At Obama’s suggestion, he and Edwards, Biden and Richardson removed their names from the Michigan ballot, then urged their supporters to vote “uncommitted.” They did this to curry favor with the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire. Hillary Clinton kept her name as did Chris Dodd. All the candidates remained on the Florida ballot but agreed not to campaign in either state.

Both states held their official primaries in January 2008. Hillary won handily in both contests, getting 54.61% of the votes in Michigan and 49.77% in Florida. Barack Obama got 32.93% in Florida and no votes in Michigan. “Uncommitted” received 39.61% of the Michigan votes.

Hillary proposed that the election results stand and that both states’ delegations be seated accordingly at the DNC convention. The Obama campaign opposed that proposal because it would have cut his narrow lead in pledged delegates by more than 50%. Clinton supporters argued for re-votes in both states, but Obama supporters quietly blocked the idea.

Due to wins in traditionally red states and small caucus states as well as complex rules for the proportional awarding of delegates (where winning over 50% of the vote could result in substantially less than 50% of the delegates) Obama had taken the lead in pledged delegates. Hillary had won all the big states (except Illinois) and all of the “purple” or “swing” states that were critical to winning in November.

Despite claims by the media and the Obama campaign (but I repeat myself) that he was the inevitable winner, Hillary continued to win big victories in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania as well as several smaller states. By the end of May Obama’s lead in pledged delegates was less than the number of pledged delegates at stake in Florida and Michigan.

The Rules and Bylaws committee met on May 31, 2008 at the Marriott in Washington DC. According to the rules the RBC committee meeting was supposed to be open to the public. At a backroom meeting during the lunch break the committee made the following decision:

Half votes would be restored to the delegates from both states. Florida’s delegates would be awarded according to the election results. Obama would be awarded all of the uncommitted delegates in Michigan plus four of Hillary’s delegates.

Why is this important?

When the primaries ended a few days later on June 3rd, Obama had an official lead of 62 pledged delegates and Hillary was ahead in actual votes. If the delegates had been awarded at full voting strength according to the official results, it would have been a net gain for Hillary of over 100 pledged delegates.

Although neither candidate would have had enough pledged delegates to clinch the nomination, but for the RBC decision Hillary would have finished in the lead for total votes AND pledged delegates!

Either way it was ultimately the superdelegates – members of the Democratic party establishment – that selected Barack Obama as the nominee. They did this in defiance of democratic principles and the will of the voters.

That is something we will never forgive, and never forget.

---

“My momma taught me to play by the rules and respect those rules. My mother taught me, and I’m sure your mother taught you, that when you decide to change the rules, middle of the game, end of the game, that is referred to as cheating.”

---

20/20 CDS

---

Matt Stoller has it:

Bill Clinton’s $80 Million Payday, or Why Politicians Don’t Care That Much About Reelection

“There was a kind of inflection point during the five-year period between 1997 and 2003 — the late Clinton and/or early Bush administration — when all the rules just went away. You went from a period, a regime, where people did have at least some concern about going to jail, to a point where everything is legal, and derivatives couldn’t be regulated at all and nobody went to jail for anything. And looking back I would say that this period definitely started under Clinton. You absolutely cannot blame this on George W. Bush.” – Charles Ferguson of Inside Job

“I never had any money until I got out of the White House, you know, but I’ve done reasonably well since then.” Bill Clinton

On December 21, 2000, as President, Bill Clinton signed a bill known as the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. This law ensured that derivatives could not be regulated, setting the stage for the financial crisis. Just two months later, on February 5, 2001, Clinton received $125,000 from Morgan Stanley, in the form of a payment for a speech Clinton gave for the company in New York City. A few weeks later, Credit Suisse also hired Clinton for a speech, at a $125,000 speaking fee, also in New York. It turns out, Bill Clinton could make a lot of money, for not very much work.

Today, Clinton is worth something on the order of $80 million (probably much more, but we don’t really know), and these speeches have become a lucrative and consistent revenue stream for his family. Clinton spends his time offering policy advice, writing books, stumping for political candidates, and running a global foundation. He’s now a vegan. He makes money from books. But the speaking fee money stream keeps coming in, year after year, in larger and larger amounts.

[...]

Over the course of the next ten years after his Presidency, Clinton brought in roughly $8-10 million a year in speaking fees. In 2004, Clinton got $250,000 from Citigroup and $150,000 from Deutsche Bank. Goldman paid him $300,000 for two speeches, one in Paris. As the bubble peaked, in 2006, Clinton got $150,000 paydays each from Citigroup (twice), Lehman Brothers, the Mortgage Bankers Association, and the National Association of Realtors. In 2007, it was Goldman again, twice, Lehman, Citigroup, and Merrill Lynch. He didn’t just reap speaking fee cash from the financial services sector – corporate titans like Oracle and outsourcing specialist Cisco paid up, as did many Israel-focused groups, Middle Eastern interests, and universities. Does this explain the finance-friendly, oil-friendly and Israel First-friendly policies pursued by the State Department under Hillary Clinton? Who knows? But if you could legally deliver millions in cash to the husband of a high-level political official, it wouldn’t hurt your policy goals.

Speaking fee money isn’t just money, it is easy money. In one appearance, for one hour, Clinton can make $125,000 to $500,000. At an hourly rate, that’s between $250 million to $1 billion annually. It isn’t the case that Clinton is a billionaire, but it is the case that Clinton can, whenever he wants, make money as quickly and as easily as a billionaire. He is awash in cash, and cash is useful. Cash finances his lifestyle. Cash helped backstop his wife’s Presidential campaign when it was on the ropes.

[...]

We don’t call it bribery, but that’s what it is. Bill Clinton made a lot of money when he signed the bill deregulating derivatives and repealed Glass-Steagall. The payout just came later, in the form of speaking fees from elite banks and their allies.

Ironically, Clinton has come to express regret about deregulating derivatives. He has not given the money back.

Some of you may remember Matt Stoller from his days at OpenLeft, a cesspool of Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Matt is living proof that CDS never dies. It is no coincidence that Clinton-hate is prevalent among the Obotians. These days the left hates Bill and Hillary more than the right does.

Stoller doesn’t mention a few things, like the peace and prosperity of the Nineties. He also skips over the fact that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that repealed Glass-Steagall passed in 1999 with veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress.

Sarah Palin has done very well financially since she left the governorship of Alaska. She has sold two books, been on television and gets hefty speaking fees too. So what does Stoller think she is being bribed to do?

But let’s assume that Stoller is correct and politicians are receiving delayed bribes. What can we do about it? Should we pass a law placing a lifetime ban on employment, speaking fees, book deals and other financial gifts and compensation for all former politicians? What about their families?

As WMCB is fond of pointing out, the only way to limit government corruption is to limit the size and power of government. A watchdog media would be helpful, but these days they are feeding at the same trough as the people they are supposed to watch.

---

Like a fresh coat of paint on a termite infested house

---

STOCK Act signing axes congressional ‘insider trading’

Bill-signing ceremonies are pretty rare events in these times of gridlock and congressional backlog; so are moments of bipartisan backslapping and handshaking. But both happened briefly today when President Obama, surrounded by a few actual Republicans, signed and praised legislation passed by Congress.

The measure was the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, better known was the STOCK Act. A long-lingering piece of legislation, it shot to the top of the priority list after a “60 Minutes” investigation highlighted instances of what the program called congressional “insider trading” — lawmakers using information gleaned on the job, “non-public information,” for personal profit.

The STOCK Act affirms that lawmakers and staff are not exempt from federal insider-trading laws and gives the House and Senate ethics committees the authority to enforce new rules. It also requires lawmakers to disclose more information about their stock trades.

The bill as it passed was watered down in the House, angering some advocates. The House stripped out a provision that would have required people who gather “political intelligence” to register as lobbyists, and left out measures relating to prosecuting corruption.

The liberal-leaning Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington said it was “lukewarm” on the legislation.

Still, lawmakers and the president, who pushed for the legislation in his State of the Union speech, took a victory lap.

---

Between the federal budget and its power to regulate commerce any bill coming out of Congress can make a company’s stock value skyrocket or plummet. If you happened to have inside knowledge as to what Congress was going to do next you could make a fortune. As a matter of fact, some members of Congress have done pretty well playing the stock market, including former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

Martha Stewart went prison for insider trading. If you or me did what she did, we’d get locked up too. But for years those rules didn’t apply to Congress. I’m not gonna get ecstatic because they finally closed one barn door.

The STOCK act may sound pretty, but it’s just the illusion of reform. It’s like slapping a band-aid on a cancer. And they only did that because 60 Minutes exposed them.

---

They aren’t stealing it, they’re laundering it

---

Yeah, I know, it’s another one of those dreadful wingnut websites. Unfortunately it’s hard to find any liberal websites that are willing to tell the truth about Obama.

PJ Tatler:

Video: Obama Campaign Disables Credit Card Verification, Accepts Donation from ‘Nidal Hasan’

This video is a follow-up to Adrian Murray’s facebook post over the weekend, in which he says that he donated to the Obama campaign as “Adolph Hitler,” occupation “Dictator” living at a German address. As you can see in the clip, citizen journalist George Scaggs of Austin tries the same thing at three different campaign sites, that of Obama, Romney and Santorum. Only the Obama site accepted the donation without the verification number.

[...]

Only the Obama campaign’s web site lacks the security code field. The others require it, and will not accept donations unless the security code and payment information match up.

Obama’s campaign implemented the same lack of verification in 2008, but the mainstream media never called them on it. It appears as though that episode has prompted a repeat in 2012.

This means three things are likely true. One, the Obama campaign disabled the verification system. The verification system is turned on on web sites that accept credit cards, by default. I used to manage the website for the Texas Republican Party, so I know this from personal experience. Someone had to take the action of turning it off on the Obama site. Two, the Obama campaign can accept donations without the identity of the donor being positively verified. Three, not only can people in foreign countries donate to the Obama campaign in violation of federal campaign law, so apparently can identity thieves who have access to stolen credit card numbers. People who do not know that their credit cards have been compromised may not notice small amounts in the $3 dollar donation range that the Obama campaign has been targeting, when such donations show up on their statements.

---

Talk about missing the obvious!

The security features for online credit card transactions and other forms of online banking are intended to prevent two things:

A. Someone stealing your money

B. Someone stealing the bank’s money

Who is the favorite candidate of the financial and banking industries? Barack Obama.

So lets say you are a banker and you want to give Obama a million dollars. That would be illegal.

But what if you set up a bunch of phony credit card accounts and used them to make lots of small donations to his campaign? It would still be illegal, but who would know?

Nobody is gonna report the money missing. No one will complain about unauthorized charges. Since you’re doing it from inside the bank no alarm bells will sound. If you create the right program you could automate the process so there were no witnesses.

Easy peasy.

The best part – for a small fee you can launder donations from other members of the 1% too!

---

---